RoguePlanet

Just in case you haven't had enough of the SC Bar Exam

Here's a very nice editorial in The State . This is not something you'll hear me say often, but I think The State gets this exactly right.

This is probably the last you'll hear from me on this, unless I can think of something funny to say about it (unlikely), but NotVeryBright has been following it closely and will probably stay on it. I also recommend NVB's timeline here.

More South Carolina Bar Exam stuff

As I posted below (semi-coherently), in March of this year the South Carolina Supreme Court issued an order changing the SC appellate court rule regarding bar examinations. Initially I posted, erroneously, that the new rule added a section prohibiting failing applicants (and their agents) from contacting the bar examiners or members of the Supreme Court about their grades, etc. Actually, that "prohibited contacts" section was in the old rule. What the Court did in the March, 2007 rule change was to remove the provisions allowing applicants to appeal a failing grade.

As part of my blogger public service I give you the pertinent provisions of the rule before the Court changed it:

Rule 402(i) Bar Examination

(5) Review of Failed Essay Sections Within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter of notification, an applicant failing the Examination may, in writing, request permission to review the essay questions, model answers, and the applicant's answers for each essay section that the applicant failed. The request shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $25. The review shall be conducted in the Bar Admissions Office in Columbia, South Carolina, and the applicant will be notified of the date and time when the review will be conducted. No review or inspection of the Multistate Bar Examination will be permitted nor will the applicant be all,owed to copy or remove the essay questions, the model answers, or the applicant's answers. An applicant who receives 110 or less on the Multistate Bar Examination shall not be allowed any review of the essay questions, model answers or the applicant's answers.



(6) Re-grading. After reviewing the essay section, an applicant who feels an error has been made in grading may petition the Supreme Court to have the section re-graded. An original and two (2) copies of the petition, accompanied by a filing fee of $50, must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within ten (10) days of the applicant's review of the essay section and must enumerate the alleged errors in grading. No briefing or argument is permitted. The only identifying mark to be placed on the petition is the identification number previously assigned to the applicant. Any reference to the applicant's other scores, economic status, social standing, employment, personal hardship, or other extraneous information is prohibited. If the petition is granted, the section shall be re-graded by the member or associate member assigned to the grad the section, and the Clerk shall notify the applicant of the results of the re-grading.



(7) Request for Verification of Multistate Bar Examination. While no review or inspection of the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) will be permitted, an applicant may request a hand grading of the MBE. Any such request must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court along with the applicable fee within fifteen days of the date of the letter of notification in (4) above.



(8) Prohibited contacts. An applicant shall not, either directly or through an agent, contact any member or associate member of the Board of Examiners or the Supreme Court regarding the questions on any section of the Bar Examination, grading procedures, an applicant's answers, or review or re-grading of any Examination. This provision does not prohibit an applicant from seeking a review, re-grading or verification in the manner provided by (5), (6), or (7) above.

As a result of the Court's March, 2007 order, section (5) and (6) above were removed and replaced with this language:

5) Access to Examination Answers; Re-grading or Other Review. No applicant shall be given access to the answers the applicant submitted during the examination. The results reported by the Board of Law Examiners are final, and no applicant shall be allowed to seek re-grading or any other review of the results of the examination.

(emphasis mine).

The "Prohibited Contacts" section was revised as follows:

(7) Prohibited Contacts. An applicant shall not, either directly or through an agent, contact any member or associate member of the Board of Law Examiners or any member of the Supreme Court regarding the questions on any section of the Bar Examination, grading procedures, or an applicant's answers. This provision does not prohibit an applicant from seeking verification of the MBE score as permitted by (6) above.

So, as a result of the amendment (read the whole thing here), applicants who can no longer review the essay exams that they failed and the model answers, and they can no longer request regrading (though they are still allowed to request verification of the "MBE" portion of their exams - the MBE is a section of multiple choice questions, graded by computer; the other bar exam sections consist of essay questions).

Things you won't see Brad Warthen blogging about

See John McCain's classy response when asked "How do we beat the bitch?" by a supporter in South Carolina.

Who is that "lady," btw?

I stand corrected! Brad Warthen DID blog about this, sorta. One suspects Mr. Warthen would have been able to work up a righteous froth of indignation had it been, oh, say, John Edwards being cutesy in response to a question calling one of his competitors a vulgar name. But that's just how one is! Cranky and pessismistic. Also, one realizes that one is not in any position to criticize others for being vulgar, btw. One realize that one is coming from a position of weakness in that regard. One is not totally un-self-aware. Then again, one is not running for president, is one?

Mr. W. is going to have plenty of chances to pleasantly surprise one as this election progresses, so let's see what happens. One will not be holding ones breath, is all one can say.

One of my questions answered

I posted earlier about the South Carolina bar exam flap. The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a terse statement Friday stating that the results of the Wills, Trusts, and Estates section of the exam were tossed out because the bar examiner, on October 31, reported a "scoring error" to the Supreme Court. The State newspaper reported that two of the people who benefited (by having their grades changed from "Fail" to "Pass") by tossing that portion of the test were the daughters of the state legislator who is chairman of the SC House Judiciary Committee, and the daughter of a sitting SC Circuit Court Judge. The legislator and the judge both acknowledged having contacted the Chairman of the Board of Bar Examiners.

In my post below, I wondered: "Did the examiner discover and report the error because of the communications by the legislator and the judge with the Chairman of the Board of Bar Examiners?"

According to a story The State published today, attorney George Hearn, who is the Chairman of the Board of Bar Examiners, says that he wasn't aware of anything being reported to the state Supreme Court:

The head of the board that grades the qualifying exam for South Carolina’s new lawyers says he was left out of the loop about a scoring error the Supreme Court cited in reversing grades for 20 people, including the children of a state lawmaker and a circuit judge.

S.C. Board of Law Examiners chairman George Hearn said neither the high court nor any of his board members informed him about the matter after the board submitted final scores of the July exam to the court before they were posted Oct. 26.
“Our board doesn’t have anything to do with it once we report the scores,” he told The State in an interview Monday. “Anything that happens afterward is done by the court.”

At this point your correspondent would just like to say that George Hearn is a local (Conway) attorney, and he and his firm have an excellent reputation. She herself would retain his firm if she ever needed an attorney, which she hopes she won't, and if she could afford it, which she hopes, someday, she could, whether or not she actually needed an attorney. She digresses. In short, she believes what he says here. Also, she doesn't know why she is referring to herself in the third person.

In any case, she is glad that the Chairman of the Board of Bar Examiners is clarifying his role, such as it was (nil, apparently) in the grade changing. However, as The State's reporter, Rick Brundrett, delicately puts it:

That apparently raises questions about what little the Supreme Court has said on the matter — that it was acting after “a scoring error reported by the examiner” Oct. 31.

It also would seem to put the court at odds with a new rule it imposed in March, banning any appeals and changes in grades after exam results are released.

Yes. So it would seem. Your correspondent hopes sincerely that the Supreme Court will further clarify this matter, in order to preserve the reputation of the legal profession in the eyes of the public . . . don't think she doesn't hear you giggling back there.

In related news, Rogue Planet favorite Thad the Impaler is one of the people who passed the bar exam without the Court's intervention. So, you know, how damn hard could it have been?

Clarification, or not: Maybe I'm making too much of this, but: Above, I said the examiner of the Wills, Trusts, and Estates portion of the bar exam reported a "scoring error" to the SC Supreme Court. However, if you read the Court's statement about this, it doesn't actually say that the examiner is the one who reported the error to the court. Rather: "On October 31, 2007, a scoring error reported by the examiner of the Wills, Trusts, and Estates Section, was communicated to the Clerk of Court." Thanks to the careless, or deliberately obscurative, use of the passive tense, we don't know WHO actually communicated the "scoring error" to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The bar examiner "reported" it, according to the Court, but the Court doesn't say to whom the error was reported (Judge Burch? Rep. Harrison? The Clerk of the Supreme Court? Who knows?) If you parse the statement it's not clear the bar examiner who "reported" the error is the same person who "communicated" it to the Court. For whatever that's worth.

Me blog pretty one day


Not Very Bright ran Rogue Planet through some kind of readaba - reedibbl - some kind of thing that annali - analisy - um, some thing that tells you how hard it is to read your blog. Anyway, this blog was rated "Elementary school."

Me so proud!

Insert bad "bar" pun here

First of all, I apologize for my recent extended bout of non-blogging. I've been, ah, on strike. Yeah, that's it.

Anyway, I wanted to blog about something that caught my eye: Last week the South Carolina Supreme Court issued an order stating that the results of the "Wills, Trusts, and Estates" essay portion of the South Carolina bar examination would not be considered in grading the bar exam. As a result of this order 20 people who had received a failing grade had their grades changed to a passing grade. The State reported today that among the twenty are the daughter of the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Harrison, and the daughter of a state circuit court judge, Paul Burch.



Moreover, The State reports, the grade change came after both Rep. Harrison and Judge Burch contacted bar officials about the results. Rep. Harrison contacted the clerk of the South Carolina Supreme Court, as well as the attorney who is the chairman of the South Carolina Board of Law Examiners. Judge Burch also contacted the chairman of the Board of Law Examiners.



Here's the problem: In June of of this year, the State Supreme Court issued an order [Correction: The Court issued the order in March; the new rule became effective in June] changing the appellate court rules to remove a provision that allowed appeals of bar exam grades. The new rule (and the old one) contain this provision: *

(7) Prohibited Contacts. An applicant shall not, either directly or through an agent, contact any member or associate member of the Board of Law Examiners or any member of the Supreme Court regarding the questions on any section of the Bar Examination, grading procedures, or an applicant's answers.

You can read the order here.


Prior to that, the court rules governing the bar exam contained a specific procedure that allowed bar applicants who failed the exam to review the essay questions, model answers, and the applicants' responses, and to petition the state Supreme Court to have a section regraded. In amending the rule, the Court eliminated the appeal process, while leaving in place the "prohibited contacts" language. *


I know of two SC lawyers (one has since moved to another state) who, after initially receiving failing grades on the SC bar exam, requested to review the essay questions, and discovered errors that, when corrected, resulted in these attorneys being given passing grades. (In one of these cases, the attorney told me that the model answer actually contained an error of law, which he identified - one wonders how many people got unfairly docked on that year's exam and never knew it). As far as I know the Supreme Court has never published any information on the number of applicants who successfully appealed an initial failing grade. I would imagine that the number is small, and it's probably just a fluke that I know of two such people. But maybe there are more than I think.



Anyway, the old South Carolina appellate rules allowed bar applicants a formal appellate procedure. But on March 12 of this year, our Supreme Court changed its rules to deprive people of this option. In the order changing the rule, the Court pronounced: " In our opinion, the internal review process conducted by the Board is more than sufficient to insure that any error in grading is determined before the examination results are released."



Well, that is manifestly not accurate, then or now.



The difference is, then, if you were Joe Shmo, you could, if you had reason, appeal a failing grade. Now, you can't. But it sure looks like if you have the right parents, you can still get around the rule.



Initially, I understand, the Supreme Court gave no reason for its decision to toss out a whole section of the exam. Today, after The State ran its story, the Court issued this statement about the decision:

The results of the July 2007, South Carolina Bar examination were released on the Judicial Department website at 4 pm, October 26, 2007.

On October 31, 2007, a scoring error reported by the examiner of the Wills, Trusts, and Estates Section, was communicated to the Clerk of Court.

On November 1, 2007, the full Court was advised of the examiner's communication and determined that owing to this error the results of the affected section would not be considered.

I still have two questions: 1) Did the examiner discover and report the error because of the communications by the legislator and the judge with the Chairman of the Board of Bar Examiners? And 2) Was the error so egregious that it justified tossing the results of an entire essay portion of the bar exam?



Oh, and 3) Does the South Carolina Supreme Court still think the SC Bar examination grading and review procedures are error-proof, justifying the Court's new rule cutting off any appeals by the ordinary people taking the exam?


For all I know the 20 people who had their grades changed from Fail to Pass deserved it. But judging from the available information, it sure looks like if two of them didn't have well-connected fathers, they all would have been shit out of luck, as they say in the legal field. If there was an error in the exam or the scoring procedure I do NOT have a problem with correcting it - in fact, I think the Court was wrong to change the rule (it's not like THOUSANDS of people take the SC Bar exam every year, so it couldn't have been that burdensome). I do have a problem with the appearance created here of special treatment for people with the right connections. It just doesn't look good. I hope my impression is wrong, but until the Court and/or the Board of Bar Examiners do a bit more 'splaining, the negative impression isn't going to fade away.



By the way, here's an interesting blog post from Brad Warthen, editor of The State, on the anomymous tip he received about this story.

*Update/correction: I revised this post to better reflect the effect of the Supreme Court's rule change. The "prohibited contacts" language existed in the old rule; the main effect of the new rule was to eliminate the formal procedure for requesting review of ones' exam and re-grading.

Ju Neyre


Fun with literature. Teh Invisible Woman is so talented!

Networking, Republican-style

There's the restroom scene.

And then there's this:

Thursday, September 6, 2007

COLUMBIA — Former state treasurer Thomas Ravenel pleaded guilty this morning to a federal charge of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine.

Ravenel said he would buy cocaine occasionally and then might not do it for a month or a couple weeks. It was all about sharing it with people he was partying with and making contacts.

45-year old Republican Blames Parents' Divorce For Coke Habit

that he claims started when he was 43.


Ravenel pleads guilty.

By ADAM BEAM and JOHN O’CONNOR, Staff Writers

Former state treasurer Thomas Ravenel admitted he’d been using cocaine for the past two years this morning in federal court in Columbia, as he pled guilty to conspiring to buy and distribute less than 100 grams of cocaine.

Ravenel, according to federal prosecutor, held parties at his home where he bought cocaine and gave it to party goers. Prosecutors say Ravenel on several occasions bought cocaine from co-defendant Michael L. Miller, a Charleston disc jockey.

Flanked by attorneys, Ravenel at first told Judge Joseph Anderson that he had not been treated for drugs, but then clarified that the treatment was more about his “childhood issues,” and “why I was engaging in reckless or immature behavior.”

This afternoon, Ravenel released a statement through his attorneys clarifying what he meant by “childhood issues.”

“The childhood issues I referred to are the ones that arose when my parents divorced 35 years ago when I was just 10 years old. A divorce is always hard on young children and, through counseling, I am learning that I am no exception to that rule,” he said.

[coughBULLSHITcough]

I wonder how long it will be before he's back in our faces again.

Geez

It's been so long since I blogged I almost forgot my password.

Boy, that would have been a huge loss to the blogosphere . . .